I am neither an English expert nor an Buddhism expert. But after reading parts of your article, I think more explanations (in Thai) are needed. For examples (from the first paragraph:

The term “life”. This term refers to the well-being (Phra Thepveti (Prayut Payutto). (1988: 58). It represents the existence of the elements of life. Because life is a unit of various things linked together, it can survive.

==The term “life”. [Note the ‘fullstop’ at end – There is no ‘verb’, so it is not a sentence.]==This term refers to the well-being (Phra Thepveti (Prayut Payutto). (1988: 58). [ ‘the’ definite article is used but without the basis for reference – the __ of what.]==It represents the existence of the elements of life. [Grammatically OK, but raises questions like ‘what are the “elements” of life’. No answers follow this.]==Because life is a unit of various things linked together, it can survive. [I understand you meant to say ‘ Life is an aggregate of several different things that exist as one entity.’ . But this is not really a good definition for ‘Life’. A car is an assembly of parts; a book comprises of paper, inks, glue and a rendition of certain expressions with letters of an alphabet by the rules of a language; … These are not ‘Life’. A better definition of ‘Life’ is clearly needed.]

I spotted several ‘Pali’ (or ‘Sanskrit’) words in your article and felt that they are clearer in Romanized Pali (or ‘Sanskrit’). For examples “The Khan 5” (khandha); Jethasikha (cetasika); Sangkhan (saṅkhāra); Khan (Khandha); …

I truly believe that we can serve humanity better with clear and specific representations of Buddhism. Even when our capacity and knowledge are still limited.